Mr. Tridle’s evidence and
contentions.
The assessment indicates that
the subject property contains 3.21 acres. The buildings are assessed as being
on one acre, and the remaining 2.21 acres are pasture. According to Mr. Tridle,
the land portion of the property’s assessment should be reduced from $38,600 to
$25,700. Tridle argument.
The improvements are also
overvalued. The buildings are vacant and deteriorated. The siding is falling
off some of the buildings, the roof areas of several buildings are falling
apart, gutters and soffits are deteriorated, doors have fallen off, and there
is water damage. Some buildings are falling in completely. The property also
suffers from ongoing vandalism. While not relevant to the present appeal, the
property has deteriorated even more since the assessment date. Tridle
testimony; Pet’r Ex. 5.
Although the subject property
is nearly worthless due to the severe deterioration, it might still be
salvageable. Mr. Tridle therefore believes that improvement portion of the
property’s assessment should be reduced from $29,300 to $24,240. He based that
opinion on the work needed to bring the buildings up to acceptable standards. Tridle
argument.
…
Indiana assesses real property
based on its true tax value, which the Manual defines as “the market
value-in-use of a property for its current use, as reflected by the utility
received by the owner or a similar user, from the property.” 2002 REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT MANUAL at 2
(incorporated by reference at 50 IAC 2.3-1-2) (2009). A party’s evidence in a
tax appeal must be consistent with that standard. See id. For example, a
market-value-in-use appraisal prepared according to Uniform Standard of
Professional Appraisal Practice (“USPAP”) often will be probative. See id.;
Kooshtard Property VI, LLC v. White River Twp. Assessor, 836 N.E.2d 501,
506 n.6 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005) reh’g den. sub nom. A party may also offer
actual construction costs, sales information for the subject or comparable
properties, and any other information compiled according to generally
acceptable appraisal principles. MANUAL at 5.
Mr. Tridle offered nothing
other than his conclusory opinion to support his claim that the subject land
was assessed for more than its market value-in-use. He, however, did offer
evidence of substantial deterioration in the subject buildings, which likely
affected the property’s value. Of course, the property’s assessment already
accounts for substantial deterioration. And Mr. Tridle did not offer any
probative evidence to quantify the deterioration or to otherwise show that the
assessment did not accurately reflect the property’s market value-in-use. He
therefore failed to make a prima facie case for reducing the assessment.
